im sure come 2015 or 2020, we'll know more accurately the chance of impact. if that chance is high, i think i could manage good use of oodles of cash for the next 10 to 15 years of my life, couldnt you?
As you get closer and closer to a certain and all-ending catastrophe, you obviously get hyperinflation. The last night before the collision, you won't be able to pay for drugs or a prostitute anymore.
Also, we should expect the probability of impact to continue to increase until it either goes to zero (most likely) or 1.
Yes, and if you want to be more precise, replace "most likely" with "with a probability of 97.3%". After all, the asteroid will hit us if and only if our predicted impact probability doesn't go down to 0 but goes up to 1 instead.
However, we do not know what our next estimate is going to be, and the current estimate doesn't (in a strictly propabilistic sense) tell us anything about future estimates.
We know that if the asteroid is on an orbit to hit us, our future estimates will eventually show (very close to) a 100% hit probability. We also know that if the asteroid misses us, then our future estimates will eventually show a (very close to) 0% hit probability. So the event "asteroid hits us" happens if and only if the event "our future estimates will eventually show a 0% hit probability" does not happen.
Since the probability of the former event is currently estimated to be 1 in 45, we can conclude that the latter event has probability 44 in 45.
In other works, the chances that future observations will exclude the possibility of impact are 44 in 45. Which is what I claimed above.
Well, I'm assuming of course that the prediction mechanism is adequate, meaning that NASA's impact probability predictions get better over time, and right before the impact date they will be either (very close to) 0% or (very close to) 100%.
The latter will happen if and only if the asteroid actually does hit us. So the events "asteroid hits us" and "NASA eventually predicts that it will hit us" are (very close to) equivalent; they are not independent concepts as you claim. The two events have therefore (very close to) the same probability, currently estimated as 1 in 45.
So our currently best estimate that NASA will eventually exclude the possibility of impact are (very close to) 44 in 45
Many press reports essentially say "the chances of impact is relatively high with 1 in 45, but don't worry since it is almost certain that future observations will exclude the possibility of impact." Even the original NASA report contained a sentence like that.
It's important to note that if the chances of impact are 1 in 45, then the chances that future observations will exclude the possibility impact are 44 in 45.
The two events "asteroid hits us" and "we can never exclude the possibility of it hitting us" are equivalent: the first happens if and only if the second happens. Therefore the two events have the same probability.
So the "don't worry" part of the above sentence is pointless: the second half sentence is a mere reformulation of the first; there is no reassuring "extremely high" probability that future observations will correct the number downward.
If they knew with almost certainty that the probabilities will eventually converge to 233/233, then they knew with almost certainty that the asteroid won't hit us. But they don't.
they are saying that the probability, a, of n changing from 1/233 to 0/233, is nearly 1.
Yes, that's what they are saying. And that statement is false. That's why I called them idiots. Think it through: the events "the asteroid will not hit us" and "our estimated probability of impact will eventually fall from 1/233 to 0/233" are equivalent (assuming our predictive capabilities are not completely off the mark). So the two events have the same probability (what you called a above), and that probability is 232/233.
That's how I understood the message, and that message is false. The probability that our estimate of impact probability will eventually fall to 0 is 232 in 233. It is not "nearly 1".
Do I understand the license correctly: all derived works have to include the permission notice, i.e. have to allow unlimited copying and creation of further derived works?
If so, then this is like GPL but without the need to provide source code. Seems like a new approach to free software licensing.
What he said about the soul is crap. What he should have said: "The fact that we can clone humans disproves convincingly that human life starts with conception/fertilization/the meeting of sperm and egg (since you can grow a human being out of a human skin cell without any conception taking place)."
That doesn't have anything to do with living 1000 years though. When I decide to go, I plan on having a grand suicide party with women, drugs, music etc. The last month will be the best month of my life (and all charged on the credit card of course).
To put things into perspective, one could point out that the Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition makes the same mistake about Hamilton's birth year as Wikipedia did until recently.
how confident can you be in the facts/opinions expressed in the wikipedia, knowing that any nutjob could have inserted the information 30 seconds before you got there.
Proper study of a Wikipedia article involves browsing its history and its discussion page. If you do that, you will usually learn quite quickly what the disputed facts are and the agendas of the involved parties. Especially for controversial topics, this gives a much better overview than you can get from a traditional encyclopedia.
By the prime number theorem, the probability that a given 7-digit number is prime is about 1/ln(10^8), which is roughly 5%. So the probability that two randomly picked numbers is prime is about 0.25%.
I'm still waiting for the announcement of the oil exporting countries that beginning on January 1, 2005, all oil business will be done in Euros, not Dollars. That should sink the US economy right there.
Whatever you have to say about our human rights record, you MUST admit that we're better than Libya
I don't know enough about Libya's record, but I do know that the U.S. continues to execute minors, and that it tortures prisoners of war. Both in clear defiance of international law.
I really hate to say it, but the UN is practically a terrorist organization.
Don't forget that the UN was founded on initiative of the US, and their rules were almost entirely dictated by the US. These rules stipulate that the UN cannot take a single important decision against the will of the US.
The beauty of cloning is that it once and for all puts to rest the idiotic claim that "human life begins with conception". You can take a cell out of my ass, grow another Axel from it, and in the whole process no egg and sperm will join, no conception will take place whatsoever.
To me, the most important part of the story is that they trained the rats by stimulating their brain's pleasure centers. Are there any neurosurgeons who will implant an electrode into my brain's pleasure center? That must be the absolutely coolest way to go: dieing from happiness.
Slashdot Mirror
As you get closer and closer to a certain and all-ending catastrophe, you obviously get hyperinflation. The last night before the collision, you won't be able to pay for drugs or a prostitute anymore.
Yes, and if you want to be more precise, replace "most likely" with "with a probability of 97.3%". After all, the asteroid will hit us if and only if our predicted impact probability doesn't go down to 0 but goes up to 1 instead.
We know that if the asteroid is on an orbit to hit us, our future estimates will eventually show (very close to) a 100% hit probability. We also know that if the asteroid misses us, then our future estimates will eventually show a (very close to) 0% hit probability. So the event "asteroid hits us" happens if and only if the event "our future estimates will eventually show a 0% hit probability" does not happen.
Since the probability of the former event is currently estimated to be 1 in 45, we can conclude that the latter event has probability 44 in 45.
In other works, the chances that future observations will exclude the possibility of impact are 44 in 45. Which is what I claimed above.
If you don't consider possibilities, then you can certainly not exclude the possibility of it hitting us.
No, estimated mass is accurate to about a factor of 3; the uncertainty in diameter is already accounted for by this number.
The latter will happen if and only if the asteroid actually does hit us. So the events "asteroid hits us" and "NASA eventually predicts that it will hit us" are (very close to) equivalent; they are not independent concepts as you claim. The two events have therefore (very close to) the same probability, currently estimated as 1 in 45.
So our currently best estimate that NASA will eventually exclude the possibility of impact are (very close to) 44 in 45
It's important to note that if the chances of impact are 1 in 45, then the chances that future observations will exclude the possibility impact are 44 in 45.
The two events "asteroid hits us" and "we can never exclude the possibility of it hitting us" are equivalent: the first happens if and only if the second happens. Therefore the two events have the same probability.
So the "don't worry" part of the above sentence is pointless: the second half sentence is a mere reformulation of the first; there is no reassuring "extremely high" probability that future observations will correct the number downward.
If they knew with almost certainty that the probabilities will eventually converge to 233/233, then they knew with almost certainty that the asteroid won't hit us. But they don't.
Yes, that's what they are saying. And that statement is false. That's why I called them idiots. Think it through: the events "the asteroid will not hit us" and "our estimated probability of impact will eventually fall from 1/233 to 0/233" are equivalent (assuming our predictive capabilities are not completely off the mark). So the two events have the same probability (what you called a above), and that probability is 232/233.
That's how I understood the message, and that message is false. The probability that our estimate of impact probability will eventually fall to 0 is 232 in 233. It is not "nearly 1".
Not in all likelihood. The probability of this happening is 232/233.
Do I understand the license correctly: all derived works have to include the permission notice, i.e. have to allow unlimited copying and creation of further derived works? If so, then this is like GPL but without the need to provide source code. Seems like a new approach to free software licensing.
What he said about the soul is crap. What he should have said: "The fact that we can clone humans disproves convincingly that human life starts with conception/fertilization/the meeting of sperm and egg (since you can grow a human being out of a human skin cell without any conception taking place)."
That doesn't have anything to do with living 1000 years though. When I decide to go, I plan on having a grand suicide party with women, drugs, music etc. The last month will be the best month of my life (and all charged on the credit card of course).
Except he said it about computers, not about programming. If you think about it, the statement with "programming" doesn't really make sense.
To put things into perspective, one could point out that the Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition makes the same mistake about Hamilton's birth year as Wikipedia did until recently.
Encyclopaedia Britannica on DVD costs about 50 bucks and is a Java application that runs on Linux.
Proper study of a Wikipedia article involves browsing its history and its discussion page. If you do that, you will usually learn quite quickly what the disputed facts are and the agendas of the involved parties. Especially for controversial topics, this gives a much better overview than you can get from a traditional encyclopedia.
By the prime number theorem, the probability that a given 7-digit number is prime is about 1/ln(10^8), which is roughly 5%. So the probability that two randomly picked numbers is prime is about 0.25%.
I'm still waiting for the announcement of the oil exporting countries that beginning on January 1, 2005, all oil business will be done in Euros, not Dollars. That should sink the US economy right there.
I don't know enough about Libya's record, but I do know that the U.S. continues to execute minors, and that it tortures prisoners of war. Both in clear defiance of international law.
I really hate to say it, but the UN is practically a terrorist organization.
Don't forget that the UN was founded on initiative of the US, and their rules were almost entirely dictated by the US. These rules stipulate that the UN cannot take a single important decision against the will of the US.
The beauty of cloning is that it once and for all puts to rest the idiotic claim that "human life begins with conception". You can take a cell out of my ass, grow another Axel from it, and in the whole process no egg and sperm will join, no conception will take place whatsoever.
Bush indeed wants the UN to outlaw all forms of human cloning worldwide, even though right now all forms are legal in the US: Position statement
To me, the most important part of the story is that they trained the rats by stimulating their brain's pleasure centers. Are there any neurosurgeons who will implant an electrode into my brain's pleasure center? That must be the absolutely coolest way to go: dieing from happiness.
Does it have a true ad-skip feature or just the 30 second skip button?